Top physicist on climate change....

gcthomas

New member
I'm still waiting for you to tell me how a wooden ship with a 10 foot draft was able to navigate the Northwest Passage in 1903?

You shouldn't have waited: as I said before, by keeping to shallow coastal water and the thin annual ice, in a boat reinforced by metal plates and cross-bracing. The path he took was icy and cold and shallow, it took three years, and was unsuitable for general shipping.

The passage is much easier now the sea ice has retreated.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
You shouldn't have waited:

I'm still waiting.

as I said before, by keeping to shallow coastal water and the thin annual ice, in a boat reinforced by metal plates and cross-bracing.

You were wrong on many things. You said the ship had a 3 feet draft, and you said it could navigate in water 1 meter deep.

You were way off on both claims.

The path he took was icy and cold and shallow, it took three years, and was unsuitable for general shipping.

Again, you make things up.

The ship purposely remained at port for two years so the men could perform scientific studies on polar magnetism.

Also, since they had no idea what lied ahead of them, many times they had to turn around and head in a different direction. You seem to forget that no one at the time even knew if a Northwest Passage was possible.

If they wanted to, they could have turned around and went back the other way without stopping now that the passage was charted.

The passage is much easier now the sea ice has retreated.

First you gave wrong information about the ship, then you embellished the captain's diary, and now you keep dodging the question.
 

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
First off, you do know that floating ice has no effect on sea levels when it melts? Therefore, all the polar ice in the Arctic could melt, and it wouldn't effect sea levels.

If you want to see global warming’s signature, look to the Arctic. Up north, the air is warming and the ice is melting. As all of that reflective ice goes away, the Arctic Ocean is soaking up more sunlight, further enhancing warming. Melting Arctic ice is also contributing significantly to sea level rise.​

Read more: Arctic Melt Raises Sea Levels and Reinforces Global Warming

Antarctic ice sheets have been melting since the last ice age thousands of years ago.

Did "the last ice age thousands of years ago" happen before or after Noah's flood?

Antarctica is land, and has been gaining ice.

1) Which is it? Are you saying that Antarctic land ice is melting down, or are you saying that Antarctica is gaining land ice?

2) "Data from NASA's Grace satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 billion metric tons per year." -- http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/
 

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
Sea level rises irreversibly every time there is an earthquake.

So are you saying that sea levels are rising because earthquakes are sinking the land, and not at all because of "thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting"?

One of these days you Darwinists are going to learn to respond to what I say rather than guessing at things I have not said.

One of these days you are going to learn to explain your eccentric views in a clearer and more detailed manner, such that those who aren't familiar with your unorthodox ideas can begin to have at least the slightest idea of what you are trying to talk about.
 

Quetzal

New member
:mock: Quetzal, gcthomas
Alright alright, I deserved that one. I was rude and apologize. At any rate, I am not sure how the ship made it. There seems to be a bit of debate about it but I am not familiar with that case. If I have some time I will take a look, it is an interesting case regardless. :e4e:
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
If you want to see global warming’s signature, look to the Arctic.​


I did.

This is me a few weeks ago on the Colony Glacier about an hour outside of Anchorage:

picture.php


Here I am drinking glacier water:

picture.php


Funny thing, I asked our helicopter pilot/tour guide about how old the glacier was. He was from Austria, he said in his home town in Austria they have a glacier that wasn't there 500 years ago.



Again, you guys are comparing the ice extent to the apex of 1980. We all acknowledge there is less ice today than in 1980.

The issue is whether man and the CO2 from man has anything to do with it. The answer is no, because as you have been shown, there was less ice than today over a hundred years ago.

If you disagree, then please explain how a wooden ship was able to navigate the Northwest Passage in 1903?

Did "the last ice age thousands of years ago" happen before or after Noah's flood?

I have no idea.

1) Which is it? Are you saying that Antarctic land ice is melting down, or are you saying that Antarctica is gaining land ice?

Both.

In some areas the land ice is increasing because of the increase of evaporation, and in other areas the land ice is melting.

2) "Data from NASA's Grace satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass.

Yes, and in the 60's and 70's they were gaining mass.

After the earth stops going through the warming period it is currently going through, and it starts going through another cooling period (which may have started), the land ice will increase again.

The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002,

And the Antarctic ice extent is greater now than it has ever been. It has been gaining ice almost every year since they have been keeping track. In fact, the ice extent is almost 20 miles larger at all areas.

and Greenland are losing mass

And Greenland used to be Green a thousand years ago.

Please tell me your explanation isn't that Greenland is called Greenland because some Viking lied?​
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
It never gets old when those who subscribe to the hoax known as global warming make fools of themselves:

henry+payne+global+warming.jpg
 

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
Again, you guys are comparing the ice extent to the apex of 1980. We all acknowledge there is less ice today than in 1980.

The issue is whether man and the CO2 from man has anything to do with it. The answer is no, because as you have been shown, there was less ice than today over a hundred years ago.

If you disagree, then please explain how a wooden ship was able to navigate the Northwest Passage in 1903?

Quite simply, exceptions to the rule do not make a new rule. I'll explain further when I have more time...
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quite simply, exceptions to the rule do not make a new rule. I'll explain further when I have more time...

Exceptions?

Do you have any idea how many ships navigated the Canadian Arctic Archipelago from 1853 - 1906?

The reason they were able to do so was because there was no ice in the summer time.

Prior to 2007 no ships except steel ice breakers could do what small wooden ships did back then.

That's not an exception.
 

Quetzal

New member
It never gets old when those who subscribe to the hoax known as global warming make fools of themselves:
By the same line of logic, I can walk into the woods behind my house and claim deforestation isn't a problem because these trees still exist. :rolleyes:
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
One of these days you are going to learn to explain your eccentric views in a clearer and more detailed manner, such that those who aren't familiar with your unorthodox ideas can begin to have at least the slightest idea of what you are trying to talk about.
You couldn't understand that?

:darwinsm:

:mock: User.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
By the same line of logic, I can walk into the woods behind my house and claim deforestation isn't a problem because these trees still exist. :rolleyes:

No, the better analogy would be you claiming there are no woods behind your house, claiming there is a consensus agreement with 97% of scientists that there are no woods behind your house, providing all kinds of charts and graphs showing there are no woods behind your house, and then you getting lost in the woods behind your house.
 

ClimateSanity

New member

Quetzal

New member
No, the better analogy would be you claiming there are no woods behind your house, claiming there is a consensus agreement with 97% of scientists that there are no woods behind your house, providing all kinds of charts and graphs showing there are no woods behind your house, and then you getting lost in the woods behind your house.
You missed the analogy. It's okay, it really wasn't important.
 
Top